Analyzing when parental warmth but without parental strictness leads to more adolescent empathy and self-concept: Evidence from Spanish homes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Classical research mainly conducted with European-American families has identified the combination of warmth and strictness (authoritative style) as the parenting always associated with the highest scores on developmental outcomes. Additionally, despite the benefits of empathy for prosocial behaviors and protection against antisocial behaviors, most research has considered the contribution of specific practices (e.g., reasoning or power assertion), but not so much the parenting styles. Similarly, family studies tend to study the relationship between parenting and global self-perceptions (self-esteem), but not so much those of each dimension (self-concept). Methods: = 2.01) were classified within one of the four household typologies (i.e., authoritative, indulgent, authoritarian, or neglectful). Adolescent developmental outcomes were cognitive empathy (adopting perspectives and emotional understanding), emotional empathy (empathic stress and empathic happiness), and self-concept (academic, social, emotional, family and physical). Results: The results showed that the indulgent parenting (warmth but not strictness) was related to equal or even better empathy and self-concept than the authoritative style (warmth and strictness), whereas non-warm parenting (authoritarian and neglectful) was consistently associated with poor results. Discussion: Overall, the present findings seriously question that parental strictness combined with parental warmth (authoritative style) is always the parenting style related to the greatest outcomes. By contrast, it seems that reasoning, warmth and involvement, without strictness (indulgent parenting) help adolescents to achieve a good orientation toward others in terms of cognitive and affective empathy and a good self-evaluation in terms of self-concept.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".